13 - Laserfiche WebLink

Comments on Historic Preservation Policies November 10, 2013 Page 4 Recommendation: We do not need archival preservation here - downtown Pleasanton is not Williamsburg. One way to soften the vastly expanded definition of"demolition" would be to add a clause clarifying: "It shall not be considered a "demolition"when portions of the façade are modified, expanded, removed or reconstructed with the exterior construction substantially matching the original in material, composition, design, color, texture, and shape." 4. What is a "Historic Resource"? -Proposed Standard: " Policy 1. "Historic resource" is defined as "a residential building built before 1942 . . . determined using the "Pleasanton Downtown Historic Context Statement"to be eligible for listing on the California Register" We find out in the Planning Commission Staff Report that "historic resource" would include a whole category of buildings which are not eligible for listing on the California Register, but which "contain sufficient components of a residential property type described in the Context Statement . . provided they retain their integrity." From the buildings highlighted in the Historic Context Statement, that seems to include most downtown residential properties, which is overbroad and overboard. -City violated its own Standard. In the past several years, multiple properties had historical analyses demonstrating that they were not eligible for listing on the California Register, lacked architectural merit, and had been substantially modified. Yet those properties were subjected to historic preservation requirements, with associated delays and exactions. (E.g. Old Stanley Boulevard, Neal Street, Spring Street, etc.) -Need to eliminate uncertainty. The results of the planned Historic Resource Survey should be used to definitively eliminate most older buildings which are not eligible for the California Register from historic preservation exactions. The City needs to bring property improvers back to downtown who are being frightened away by lengthy and erratic imposition of historic exactions on mediocre buildings. Recommendation: 1. The results of the Historic Resource Survey need to be brought back to City Council for approval. 2. The Survey should distinguish between buildings genuinely eligible for California Register listing, and buildings which are recommended for "historic resource" designation based on the Historic Context document, under the expansive standard set forth in the Planning Commission Staff Report (quoted above). 3. Property owners whose buildings are recommended for designation as a "historic resource" based on the Historic Context statement rather than the California Register criteria should receive notice and opportunity to weigh in on whether their property truly merits the burden of a "historic resource" designation, and the factual validity of the consultant's determination. 4. The final "historic resource" designation on each property should be made by City Council, not by a consultant.